Clariphonic mk 3

[Guy Rowland]

They say:

The Sound of Clariphonic Mk3
The sound of Mk3 comes from the very cozy marriage of Magpha EQ’s buttery algorithms with Clariphonic’s uniquely gain-dependent shelving corners.

• XY control allows the real-hardware experience of turning both knobs at once. You should try this, it’s a bigger deal than you might think.• 1:1 features with the Clariphonic MS hardware

• new Cut option on Focus band allows for upper-mid softening

• Extensive, accurate metering for precision adjustments

• Dynamic EQ Graph display (with On/Off switch!)

New $129, upgrade $79 (sale prices)

https://thehouseofkush.com/products/clariphonicmk3

[Ashermusic]

I wonder how different it is from the Mk2, which I use all the time.

[Piet De Ridder]

According to Gregory Scott, the developer, it's completely re-written from the ground up. That also explains the considerable upgrade price.

This plugin, like Hammer mk2, was built with an entirely new codebase. These two plugins share zero code --- zero --- with anything we've released in the past.

That project, of architecting and designing and building and testing an entirely new codebase, has been a meaningful part of why I was away and underground for the past 2 years. That's not the only reason why, some was personal, but it was a big factor.

That new codebase, which we continue to optimize and refine to be more snappy, CPU friendly, blah blah blah, will underpin every new thing we drop in the coming months and years. And a lot is coming from Kush, some of which no one will see coming. We can now develop and release new products infinitely faster than before, propagate catalog-wide updates and fixes and refinements instantly, and not fall to pieces if and when Apple decides to reinvent the CPU again.

Gregory Scott - ubk

__

[Guy Rowland]

That's great, but what does it mean for us? I've never noticed Clariphonic being a CPU hog.

From that description I can see how it helps them a lot with other projects but... why am I spending $79 for that?

[Ashermusic]

Exactly my reaction, Guy.

[Lawrence]

Mine as well, says nothing about any sonic improvements.

[Piet De Ridder]

The thing that puzzles me is this: Mr. Scott has an entire video about how he deals with him suffering from rather severe hearing loss of high frequencies (as a result, if I recall correctly, of being exposed to extremely loud machinery when he was young). So, if his hearing is as bad as he says it is, how, I wonder, does he evaluate the quality of a plug-in (and/or its underlying codebase and algorithms) that's designed specifically to work on the frequency range of the audio spectrum which he can no longer hear all that well?

Sure, there are tools that give fairly reliable and useful visual feedback on what's happening in the upper frequency ranges and, as such, can be of great help when mixing and engineering, but this is an entirely different challenge: this is about judging, in the greatest possible detail, whether your new codebase and your new algorithms perform their (high- and highest frequencies related) tasks in a way that satisfies — both technically and aestheticaly — (a) yourself and (b) the most demanding, discerning and critical listener. You need ears for that, it would seem to me. And not just any ears, but a pair of young yet already well-trained and experienced ears, ears that still hear as well as a human being can hear and that can also tell the difference between good sound and less good sound. A curve on a screen (or whatever other visual representation of audio you choose to help you), no matter how precise and detailed, simply won't tell you what you need to know in this situation.

So I'm confused. I'm totally convinced that the (inevitably subtle) sonic differences between the Clariphonic MkII and the new MkIII are completely wasted on anyone older than 40 years and certainly on people, of whatever age, whose hearing is impaired in one way or another. And even if those sonic differences do show up in an analyzer — which I very much doubt — there is still no way to translate what you see into something you can't hear, is there?

Unless Mr. Scott can, and is willing to, rely on the ears of fellow Kushians, friends and colleagues — all much younger and of much better hearing than he is — whose judgements in all high-frequency related matters he trusts implicitly, I don't really see how he would be able to go from a Clariphonic MkII to a MkIII -- or from a MkI to a MkII, for that matter — in a way that's sonically, technically and musical meaningful.

__

[Lawrence]

As a person whose hearing is definitely impaired and sadly getting worse, I can say two things:

1. Any sort of mixing or mastering is going to necessitate a fair amount of guesswork, and

2. Help, in the form of mastering, mixing etc by third parties with good ears is necessary and depending on the project and its ending place, critical.

(All of which speaks to your point.)

[Ashermusic]

Every thing Piet wrote makes total sense to me. It’s entirely possible that the new version reproduces 10% better frequencies that I don’t hear anyway at 77 with some measurable high frequency loss especially in one ear.

[Brett]

Or….we could all just download and listen to it and then decide!

I love the mkII but find it a little CPU heavy to use on too many tracks so will be looking forward to trying out this one when I get a chance

[Guy Rowland]

The thing that puzzles me is this: Mr. Scott has an entire video about how he deals with him suffering from rather severe hearing loss of high frequencies (as a result, if I recall correctly, of being exposed to extremely loud machinery when he was young). So, if his hearing is as bad as he says it is, how, I wonder, does he evaluate the quality of a plug-in (and/or its underlying codebase and algorithms) that's designed specifically to work on the frequency range of the audio spectrum which he can no longer hear all that well?

Sure, there are tools that give fairly reliable and useful visual feedback on what's happening in the upper frequency ranges and, as such, can be of great help when mixing and engineering, but this is an entirely different challenge: this is about judging, in the greatest possible detail, whether your new codebase and your new algorithms perform their (high- and highest frequencies related) tasks in a way that satisfies — both technically and aestheticaly — (a) yourself and (b) the most demanding, discerning and critical listener. You need ears for that, it would seem to me. And not just any ears, but a pair of young yet already well-trained and experienced ears, ears that still hear as well as a human being can hear and that can also tell the difference between good sound and less good sound. A curve on a screen (or whatever other visual representation of audio you choose to help you), no matter how precise and detailed, simply won't tell you what you need to know in this situation.

So I'm confused. I'm totally convinced that the (inevitably subtle) sonic differences between the Clariphonic MkII and the new MkIII are completely wasted on anyone older than 40 years and certainly on people, of whatever age, whose hearing is impaired in one way or another. And even if those sonic differences do show up in an analyzer — which I very much doubt — there is still no way to translate what you see into something you can't hear, is there?

Unless Mr. Scott can, and is willing to, rely on the ears of fellow Kushians, friends and colleagues — all much younger and of much better hearing than he is — whose judgements in all high-frequency related matters he trusts implicitly, I don't really see how he would be able to go from a Clariphonic MkII to a MkIII -- or from a MkI to a MkII, for that matter — in a way that's sonically, technically and musical meaningful.

__

As someone high-frequency challenged these days, I agree with every word.

I'd be interested in hearing an A/B review between mk2 and mk3 from someone under... 30? But preferably a teenager. Anyone?

Lower CPU would be a reason to buy I guess, but it's honestly not really an issue with mk2 here. Otherwise this is one of the most perplexing upgrades I can recall.

[Tanuj Tiku]

I have used clariphonic in the past and there are some use cases for me, though a bit limited because I am usually cutting frequencies. However, it does add some nice sheen when you do need it.

I would argue that Slick EQ from TDR is a good alternative. At 18 EUR right now, it is worth checking out. It also has saturation built in and the curves do help manage things as well as add really nice boosts, when required.

[Tanuj Tiku]

On the topic of high frequencies, sadly I am not immune. At 41, I have lost some of the top end and even though I can still hear up to 15.5 Khz, the drop off is what is problematic for most people. The curve changes significantly as we age (at least for those who admit it).

I agree with Piet but I also think that good ears have linked memory from all the years of working and usually are able to do a lot more than the data will tell us. There are so many things that happen due to habit and muscle memory as well as how we approach things.

Put it this way, the significant drop off in high frequencies does not somehow equal to worse mixes. The threshold is much gentler for some reason. However, around the age of 60 it is more significant as I have it on good authority. It would be near impossible to hear the triangle in an orchestra during busy passage.

How do older conductors manage this? I have sometimes imagined them not hearing things that are present - perhaps asking musicians to give a more raspy sound unnecessarily. However, in practice this does not happen (at least from what I have seen in sessions). The ears and brain are remarkable at adapting. There must be something else going on. Knowing this phenomena itself helps.

I do agree that in later years, it is probably a good idea to get younger ears to give something a listen but again, I haven't reached that place yet.

[Strytten]

I found a thread on Gearspace. It took 3-4 pages to get past shock over the upgrade price and to reports from those who have used it and compared to MkIi and other products. These reports were quite positive and complimentary as to the sound of MkIII so I'm going to take the plunge.

[Lawrence]

I found a thread on Gearspace. It took 3-4 pages to get past shock over the upgrade price and to reports from those who have used it and compared to MkIi and other products. These reports were quite positive and complimentary as to the sound of MkIII so I'm going to take the plunge.

Please report back!

[Brett]

It looks like Kush might have fixed the bug in the 'Kush Holiday Sale' cart. You can now add either UBK2 or Hammer2 to the cart and get the Clariphonic upgrade for free.

(This wasn't working earlier)

[Brett]

OK, I've had a play. It took a while to get the hang of the new interface (and I suspect I still have a way to go) but I do prefer it. I think the XY pad will grow on me and I quite like the new cut option. Does it sound better? I think it does, but honestly it's difficult to be objective because it perhaps it's simply because it feels faster to dial in the sound I want. With Analog highs OFF the mk3 is more CPU efficient than the mk2 here. (edit: forgot to mention the output control is very useful)

That said, while I like the upgrade, I would probably be on the fence upgrading because the price is a little steep, but I also demoed Hammer mk2 and UBK-2 and ended up quite enjoying Hammer and so since I'll get the Clariphonic mk3 upgrade for free I suspect I'll jump.

Issues with the Clariphonic upgrade:
Instantiating the plugin takes too long here as does toggling the Analog highs (oversampling?) button. I'd prefer the plugin loaded with analog highs off and suspect it would be quicker to load. Likewise with Hammer.
I like the graph but don't love that it keeps auto-scaling. I reckon it makes it harder to learn what the plug is doing. This is likely to be less important as time goes on.

(Decided against the UBK simply because the CPU hit is a bit too high for me to use too many instances of, even with oversampling off.)

Last day of their holiday sale today

Cheers

[Lawrence]

OK, I've had a play. It took a while to get the hang of the new interface (and I suspect I still have a way to go) but I do prefer it. I think the XY pad will grow on me and I quite like the new cut option. Does it sound better? I think it does, but honestly it's difficult to be objective because it perhaps it's simply because it feels faster to dial in the sound I want. With Analog highs OFF the mk3 is more CPU efficient than the mk2 here. (edit: forgot to mention the output control is very useful)

That said, while I like the upgrade, I would probably be on the fence upgrading because the price is a little steep, but I also demoed Hammer mk2 and UBK-2 and ended up quite enjoying Hammer and so since I'll get the Clariphonic mk3 upgrade for free I suspect I'll jump.

Issues with the Clariphonic upgrade:
Instantiating the plugin takes too long here as does toggling the Analog highs (oversampling?) button. I'd prefer the plugin loaded with analog highs off and suspect it would be quicker to load. Likewise with Hammer.
I like the graph but don't love that it keeps auto-scaling. I reckon it makes it harder to learn what the plug is doing. This is likely to be less important as time goes on.

(Decided against the UBK simply because the CPU hit is a bit too high for me to use too many instances of, even with oversampling off.)

Last day of their holiday sale today

Cheers

Great review. Thanks Brett!